第84頁(第1/4 页)

【注釋】

[1]there is an extensive and critical exaation of urces the posthuo work of knpenskij，&l;ocerki po istorii ikonoborceskogo dvizenija v vizantijskoj iperii v 8-9 vvfeofan i ego chronografija&r;（studies the history of the oclast ovent the byzante epire the eighth and nth centuries：theophanes and his chronicle），553（1950），393-438 and 4（1951），211-62he attepts to show that the urce ed by theophanes and nicephor for this period es fro the oclast cap and is arked by a tendency to be pro-oclast which was isted the opposite direction by the o odule writersa careful analysis of the urces does not，however，support this viewto take an exaple-both writers give the sa rean for the lowerg of the price of food under nstante 5，iethat the avaricio oclast had hoarded up gold，and they both therefore call hi a new idas（theoph443，19 and niceph76，5）it is ite obvio that this ockg par had been provided by their on urcefor the sa negative ncsion，based on the sa argunts，but without knowled of y observations，see alexander，patrnicephor 158 ff

[2]edcde boor，2 vols，leipzig 1904;the terpolated work and the ntuation edeuralt，stpetersburg 1859

[3]edthtafel，unich 1859

[4]cfspsestakov，554（1897），167 ffand 5（1898），19 ff

[5]ed5。1sreznevskij，stpetersburg 1905for the plicated proble of the pilation of this work and the relation beeen the different recensions cfespecially vgvasiljevskij，&l;chronika lagofeta na slavjansko i gresko&r;（the chronicle of the logothete slavon